Isn't violence sometimes necessary?
Isn't violence sometimes necessary, for example in self-defense or to defend those who cannot defend themselves?
Violence is only necessary if it is self-defense. I agree with you there.
In self defense, yes. In any other situations, most likely not. The way we progress as humans is to avoid our dangerous natural instincts (not all of them). Do unto others, as you would want done upon you. That's what I live by.
Absolutely; although, I agree it should be in self-defence this (self-defence) can be significantly ambiguous at times. Imagine if during WWII the Allies continued to allow the Nazis to advance (Chamberlain-like) further before battling with them and destroying their leadership and many others...
Now, rather timely, although one could argue that Sissi (backwards) is not threatening us directly, it would be a significant mistake not to crush them now before they are airborn and have increased in their significantly diabolical influence...
I always reflect back to a game of chess or if you will, ice hockey; sometimes, the best defence can indeed be a timely offense...
The typical devil's advocate question is as follows: if you could prevent the death of numerous innocent people, even if it meant the death of a single guilty person, would you? I personally would, and have a hard time reconciling a moral opposition.
by edmondpogi3 years ago
When is it justifiable for protesters and activists to break the law for the sake of their cause?
by Earl S. Wynn7 years ago
Is it a good idea to keep some kind of weapon for home defense? If so, what should I buy/make?
Copyright © 2018 HubPages Inc. and respective owners.
Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners.
HubPages® is a registered Service Mark of HubPages, Inc.
HubPages and Hubbers (authors) may earn revenue on this page based on affiliate relationships and advertisements with partners including Amazon, Google, and others.